My guess;
HRH Prince William will take on more sports charities and will take on patronages his mother held in the vain attempt to leech off of her popularity.

He is also set to take on more of Prince Philip's causes, apparently. He has taken on patronage of the Football Assoc. Didn't Prince Philip once have that one? He is patron of Tusk Trust, a conservation charity (conservation is Prince Philip's big thing). Also, he will be Ranger of Windsor after Prince Philip retires from that position.

I can't see Britain being a republic. I can see a lot of changes taking place and the monarchy becoming smaller in scale with (even) less powers, but it brings too much morale and spirit to the nation. Think how happy a royal visit makes a town, and what a positive influence the royals have in so many areas. Royalty is good for many reasons. Maybe you don't like Prince William, but it's still not a reason to want to be rid of the whole system. For one thing, by the time PW becomes king, he will be over 50 because I am sure that the Queen will live to be 100, at least. She has no health problems worth mentioning. She hasn't even had any major operations. Her genetics is her strongest claim on a long life yet. So by the time Wills becomes king, he'll be so damn old, and his kid will become a child king probably, and there will be a regent or something.

He is also set to take on more of Prince Philip's causes, apparently. He has taken on patronage of the Football Assoc. Didn't Prince Philip once have that one? He is patron of Tusk Trust, a conservation charity (conservation is Prince Philip's big thing). Also, he will be Ranger of Windsor after Prince Philip retires from that position.

I can't see Britain being a republic. I can see a lot of changes taking place and the monarchy becoming smaller in scale with (even) less powers, but it brings too much morale and spirit to the nation. Think how happy a royal visit makes a town, and what a positive influence the royals have in so many areas. Royalty is good for many reasons. Maybe you don't like Prince William, but it's still not a reason to want to be rid of the whole system. For one thing, by the time PW becomes king, he will be over 50 because I am sure that the Queen will live to be 100, at least. She has no health problems worth mentioning. She hasn't even had any major operations. Her genetics is her strongest claim on a long life yet. So by the time Wills becomes king, he'll be so damn old, and his kid will become a child king probably, and there will be a regent or something.

Of course I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life in good health and spirit. But I disagree with the often expressed idea that her age has no grip on her and that she has the eternal life. Her spouse, the Duke of Edinburgh, looks awfully frail. In a short time span suddenly the Duke has aged enormously. You often see that a couple, so long intertwined, remarkably soon leave this world when one of them has died.

Queen Juliana of the Netherlands died in March 2004 and her spouse Prince Bernhard, who has witnessed her coffin to be brought downstairs into the royal vaults, followed her in the same year. Their marriage lasted from 1936 to 2004 (68 years) and it was like the Queen's death did suck away the Prince's own desire for life.

Once again, I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life, but things can go quicker than expected.

The strength of the monarchy lies in its ability to adapt and change in line with the prevailing times - and hence, I think we still have some time to run before we have a republic in the UK. I think Charles and William will both continue to modernise the monarchy, and to demsontrate that they are "good value"

The European Union is not interested in the way the member states are run and who heads them as long as they are democracies, protect human rights and accept that on certain fields the union has the guiding authority.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

Of course I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life in good health and spirit. But I disagree with the often expressed idea that her age has no grip on her and that she has the eternal life. Her spouse, the Duke of Edinburgh, looks awfully frail. In a short time span suddenly the Duke has aged enormously. You often see that a couple, so long intertwined, remarkably soon leave this world when one of them has died.

Queen Juliana of the Netherlands died in March 2004 and her spouse Prince Bernhard, who has witnessed her coffin to be brought downstairs into the royal vaults, followed her in the same year. Their marriage lasted from 1936 to 2004 (68 years) and it was like the Queen's death did suck away the Prince's own desire for life.

Once again, I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life, but things can go quicker than expected.

But there is still Charles - it's quite probably that his healthy lifestyle and the love of his wife will help him to become enormously old himself.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

As Jo said, the EU is nothing to do with it. The Netherlands is a member of the EU and is in the Euro zone yet the monarchy remains untouched and Queen Beatrix has spoken at least once to my knowledge to the Council of Europe so I don't think the EU has any plans to scrap monarchies just as it has no plans to scrap any presidencies.

Quote:

Also, he will be Ranger of Windsor after Prince Philip retires from that position.

Oh that useful position of glorified park keeper. How important that will be for the country. We can all rest assured that whilst we battle the rise of the right, terrorism and poverty we will always have the Ranger of Windsor.

Quote:

For one thing, by the time PW becomes king, he will be over 50 because I am sure that the Queen will live to be 100, at least. She has no health problems worth mentioning. She hasn't even had any major operations. Her genetics is her strongest claim on a long life yet.

I think what people seem to forget is that the Queen Mother hardly had the same lifestyle as the Queen had. For one thing the Queen isn't being preserved by several vats of Gordon's Gin and for another thing, the Queen Mother did very little. As much as I adored her, she didn't say anything after 1946. She turned up in a golf buggy, waved and went home again. The Queen has to do alot more and it's alot more stressful. And how anyone could suggest a 100 year old can be an effective Head of State is beyond me. It's just too much. My grandmother can't remember where she put her spectacles at 78, let alone rule a country. If people want the Queen to live on and on and on just to spite Charles I think that's extremely unfair on the Queen.

Quote:

Can one really imagine Great Britain as a republic?

Oh I can. I'm down to be President on Gordon's day off. Britain could survive as a Republic or at least England could. We're not really that united with Scotland and Wales anymore.

Of course I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life in good health and spirit. But I disagree with the often expressed idea that her age has no grip on her and that she has the eternal life. Her spouse, the Duke of Edinburgh, looks awfully frail. In a short time span suddenly the Duke has aged enormously. You often see that a couple, so long intertwined, remarkably soon leave this world when one of them has died.

Queen Juliana of the Netherlands died in March 2004 and her spouse Prince Bernhard, who has witnessed her coffin to be brought downstairs into the royal vaults, followed her in the same year. Their marriage lasted from 1936 to 2004 (68 years) and it was like the Queen's death did suck away the Prince's own desire for life.

Once again, I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life, but things can go quicker than expected.

But has she had any operations, any reported medical problems? The Queen Mother had much more problems, and lived to be 102, and Princess Margaret had multiple problems (struggle with cancer for a time, to name just one of many, and she drank heavily, apparently, and smoked). The Queen still rides every week, and doesn't smoke or drink, and she hasn't had any problems, or any reported, and I don't see how things could be kept secret as much as she is in the public eye!

Of course I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life in good health and spirit. But I disagree with the often expressed idea that her age has no grip on her and that she has the eternal life. Her spouse, the Duke of Edinburgh, looks awfully frail. In a short time span suddenly the Duke has aged enormously. You often see that a couple, so long intertwined, remarkably soon leave this world when one of them has died.

Queen Juliana of the Netherlands died in March 2004 and her spouse Prince Bernhard, who has witnessed her coffin to be brought downstairs into the royal vaults, followed her in the same year. Their marriage lasted from 1936 to 2004 (68 years) and it was like the Queen's death did suck away the Prince's own desire for life.

Once again, I wish Her Brittanic Majesty a long life, but things can go quicker than expected.

you need only look to HM's mother. she lived for 50 or so years after the death of her husband and they were very close. the queen mother's longevity would be a very good indication of HM's life expectancy.

True, but the fact that HM is now 81 and has not had any health problems worth noting, not a single hospital in-patient stay, and the appearance of her in the past several years.... I can't speak for everyone, but my personal opinion is that HM looks vibrant, healthy, and sturdy.
I will concede to Henri that the Duke does, indeed, look very haggard of late, but that is the Duke, not HM. I hate the thought of either of them dying, really hate it. It makes me ill to think about it now, especially Prince Philip, because I have always had so much admiration for him.
I will also concede that my earlier estimate of 30 years before Prince Charles succeeds to the Throne was too high. Even the argument that she has her mother's longevity gives her just over 20 years.
Now, with all that said, for God's sake, Long love/live the Queen! (and the Duke too!)

Recently, in another thread (Camilla attending Diana's memorial), a couple of members discussed their disappointment in William's actions of late. They feel he is acting more like a celebrity than a member of the British Royal Family.

I think he could be a little more discrete with his personal life (i.e. the night clubbing) but on the other hand I think its a little unfair to compare William at 25/26 to his grandmother and/or his father at the same age. Its a different time (i.e. the media). Should he take on more engagements?

Personally, I have a view that Royals fit into two categories. They're either Alices or Margarets. The Alices are demure, quite low-key and carry out lots of engagements and take on lots of patronages. They're not averse to appearing in uniform and are quite happy to shake 10,000 hands and seem genuinely interested in everyone they meet. They'll attend dinner parties and luncheons and generally tick every Debretts box. Never touched by scandal, they're rarely mentioned by the media and when they die, they're hailed as a perfect specimen. And then you have the Margarets, who court controversy, carry out the engagements and appear as regal as you like but in private are very feisty and enjoy a good knees up. They're usually responsible for the funniest quips and are less Queen Mary but retain their position through careful handling of their private lives. So which is William? Well, I don't see him as either. At the moment, he's in a strange limbo where he has the money, the breeding and the castle but he prefers to behave like a commoner. His engagements are zero, his patronages almost non-existant and his military career a convenient way of wasting a few years which will entitle him to sport medals in his future portraits. He either has to become an Alice or a Margaret but whatever he chooses, he has to do it quickly because he's becoming quite the bore.

Personally, I have a view that Royals fit into two categories. They're either Alices or Margarets. The Alices are demure, quite low-key and carry out lots of engagements and take on lots of patronages. They're not averse to appearing in uniform and are quite happy to shake 10,000 hands and seem genuinely interested in everyone they meet. They'll attend dinner parties and luncheons and generally tick every Debretts box. Never touched by scandal, they're rarely mentioned by the media and when they die, they're hailed as a perfect specimen. And then you have the Margarets, who court controversy, carry out the engagements and appear as regal as you like but in private are very feisty and enjoy a good knees up. They're usually responsible for the funniest quips and are less Queen Mary but retain their position through careful handling of their private lives. So which is William? Well, I don't see him as either. At the moment, he's in a strange limbo where he has the money, the breeding and the castle but he prefers to behave like a commoner. His engagements are zero, his patronages almost non-existant and his military career a convenient way of wasting a few years which will entitle him to sport medals in his future portraits. He either has to become an Alice or a Margaret but whatever he chooses, he has to do it quickly because he's becoming quite the bore.

I agree totally.

The experiment of raising the second in line to the throne to believe that he is 'normal' has failed with regard to William IMHO as he simply doesn't seem to want to do any of the royal things. He is quickly turning me into a republican.

The experiment of raising the second in line to the throne to believe that he is 'normal' has failed with regard to William IMHO as he simply doesn't seem to want to do any of the royal things. He is quickly turning me into a republican.

I hope that his father lives a good 40 more years at least!!

Perhaps he wants the best of both worlds. But me, I would love to be able to walk in his shoes for about a year or so.

I would love to be able to pay large sums of cash for the 'privacy' he paid for when he jaunted off to the Seychelles. In fact, I would love to have the cash just to go to the Seychelles.

I wouldn't mind meeting and greeting because I have that personality. Then during off-time, I have personal projects I'm interested in doing that my work doesn't allow me to get too involved in.

Then there's the skiing, boating, safari, hunting (does he do this anymore?), jet-setting (yes both Harry and William are really novice jet-setters IMHO).

Then to go to the country either to Highgrove, Sandringham or Balmoral--away from the big city. A wonderful life.

And, in a crazy world like we are living in, to have our own security and bodyguards making sure we are safe from kidnappings, bombings, etc. is a bonus. Wow, I forgot about the exotic meals, free seats during invites to premiers, operas, concerts, football, cricket, etc.

Finally, I would love to be able to be called to a meal that I need not to worry about in terms of menu, recipes, costs, shopping for it, etc., and then to push myself away thank the servants (I would do this) and take a brandy in from of the tele and just relax before heading off to my bedchamber knowing full well that my fireplace is lit, room is at the right temperature, my bed pulled down and my bath smells like lilies and not to mention that I need not to worry about being the place being broken into (unless I'm sleeping at BP) while I dream about what group of islands or snow-capped mountains I planned on visiting again. I surely would love to live that life and I'm not afraid to admit it. Then again, I may regret it and wish for the end to come.

Perhaps William likes it both ways as well. His office was able to call up where he wanted to go and get the security and paparazzi restriction he wanted. And, when he left he returned to the life of country gent. Afterall, he could have returned to his barracks in the London finalizing Friday's commemoration instead of opting for Birkhall and the elegance.

We're beginning to get a rather worryingly large number of fledgling republicans as a result of this incident, I must say.

I've noticed the same thing. Even my Great Great Aunt said, "Bloody Royals" on the telephone yesterday and she'd have forgiven them baby eating at one time. It's all very surreal don't you find? Here everyone is saying Charles is the worry and yet it seems William is the one breeding republicans.

Quote:

Anyone else up to the challenge, if you could have both worlds?

I don't know. I think I'd prefer to be a mistress than a proper spouse and as for King in Waiting. It's too much these days. But that doesn't mean William shouldn't make an effort. I wonder if he reads these forums. If he does and is reading this; Do some bloody work.

Potentially William has another 20 (or more) years before he succeeds to the throne. It is therefore important that he carve out his own niche in terms of what he is going to do over this time period. He can do his stint in the military and the FO and whatever government departments he so chooses, but in addition to that, it is important that there are certain causes he is closely associated with. It is also important that he is seen to be a hard working royal in the mould of say, Princess Anne. If these things are being taken care of, I doubt anybody would mind him seen coming out of night clubs regularly, or taking 3-4 holidays a year as most well to-do Brits do. Comments??

Personally, I have a view that Royals fit into two categories. They're either Alices or Margarets. The Alices are demure, quite low-key and carry out lots of engagements and take on lots of patronages. They're not averse to appearing in uniform and are quite happy to shake 10,000 hands and seem genuinely interested in everyone they meet. They'll attend dinner parties and luncheons and generally tick every Debretts box. Never touched by scandal, they're rarely mentioned by the media and when they die, they're hailed as a perfect specimen. And then you have the Margarets, who court controversy, carry out the engagements and appear as regal as you like but in private are very feisty and enjoy a good knees up. They're usually responsible for the funniest quips and are less Queen Mary but retain their position through careful handling of their private lives. So which is William? Well, I don't see him as either. At the moment, he's in a strange limbo where he has the money, the breeding and the castle but he prefers to behave like a commoner. His engagements are zero, his patronages almost non-existant and his military career a convenient way of wasting a few years which will entitle him to sport medals in his future portraits. He either has to become an Alice or a Margaret but whatever he chooses, he has to do it quickly because he's becoming quite the bore.

You have my total agreement as well. William and Harry are doing more harm to the monarchy than Charles and Camilla ever could. They need to decide whether they are indeed royals, or just celebrity kids, like Fifi Trixiebelle.

Quote:

Anyone else up to the challenge, if you could have both worlds?

It really isn't so rare you know. To get all of that and more, (the freedom to really enjoy it), all you have to do if you haven't got the family connections, is have lots of money!

You have my total agreement as well. William and Harry are doing more harm to the monarchy than Charles and Camilla ever could. They need to decide whether they are indeed royals, or just celebrity kids, like Fifi Trixiebelle.
It really isn't so rare you know. To get all of that and more, (the freedom to really enjoy it), all you have to do if you haven't got the family connections, is have lots of money!

My vaults are open, Skydragon...email me and I'll send you my routing number for transfer.

We've been hearing a lot about "William shouldn't be doing so much clubbing," "there's no point his being in the Army because he'll never see action in a war zone so he's just wasting time," "he shouldn't be pretending to get work experience in the real world when it's just a charade," "he shouldn't be spending so much time with Kate," "he shouldn't be spending so little time with Kate," and a whole lot more about what he shouldn't be doing and why his life is either directionless or going in the wrong direction.

So this thread is for people to post about what they think he should be doing with his life in the immediate future and the foreseeable future. It isn't for people to carry on posting about what he shouldn't be doing, because we've been hearing an awful lot of that recently. Also, please try to avoid comparisons with the European crown princes, because most of them are quite a bit older than William and because William isn't the heir to the throne. He probably doesn't have the prospect of waiting till he's a senior citizen before inheriting the throne, which was always on the cards for Charles, but it's possible that it'll be a while before he inherits and it may even be a while before Charles inherits and William becomes Heir Apparent.

So from now until the time he becomes Heir Apparent, or even King, what should he be doing with his life?